Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EventGrid: Fix remaining swagger correctness issues #13242

Merged
merged 28 commits into from
Mar 9, 2021

Conversation

ahamad-MS
Copy link
Contributor

MSFT employees can try out our new experience at OpenAPI Hub - one location for using our validation tools and finding your workflow.

Changelog

Please ensure to add changelog with this PR by answering the following questions.

  1. What's the purpose of the update?

    • new service onboarding
    • new API version
    • update existing version for new feature
    • update existing version to fix swagger quality issue in s360
    • Other, please clarify
  2. When you are targeting to deploy new service/feature to public regions? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
    Already deployed.

  3. When you expect to publish swagger? Please provide date, or month to public if date is not available yet.
    ASAP

  4. If it's an update to existing version, please select SDKs of specific language and CLIs that require refresh after swagger is published.

    • SDK of .NET (need service team to ensure code readiness)
    • SDK of Python
    • SDK of Java
    • SDK of Js
    • SDK of Go
    • PowerShell
    • CLI
    • Terraform
    • No, no need to refresh for updates in this PR

Contribution checklist:

If any further question about AME onboarding or validation tools, please view the FAQ.

ARM API Review Checklist

  • Ensure to check this box if one of the following scenarios meet updates in the PR, so that label “WaitForARMFeedback” will be added automatically to involve ARM API Review. Failure to comply may result in delays for manifest application. Note this does not apply to data plane APIs, all “removals” and “adding a new property” no more require ARM API review.

    • Adding new API(s)
    • Adding a new API version
    • Adding a new service
  • Please ensure you've reviewed following guidelines including ARM resource provider contract and REST guidelines. Estimated time (4 hours). This is required before you can request review from ARM API Review board.

  • If you are blocked on ARM review and want to get the PR merged with urgency, please get the ARM oncall for reviews (RP Manifest Approvers team under Azure Resource Manager service) from IcM and reach out to them.

Breaking Change Review Checklist

If there are following updates in the PR, ensure to request an approval from Breaking Change Review Board as defined in the Breaking Change Policy.

  • Removing API(s) in stable version
  • Removing properties in stable version
  • Removing API version(s) in stable version
  • Updating API in stable or public preview version with Breaking Change Validation errors
  • Updating API(s) in public preview over 1 year (refer to Retirement of Previews)

Action: to initiate an evaluation of the breaking change, create a new intake using the template for breaking changes. Addition details on the process and office hours are on the Breaking change Wiki.

Please follow the link to find more details on PR review process.

@ahamad-MS ahamad-MS requested a review from Kishp01 as a code owner March 2, 2021 20:29
@openapi-workflow-bot
Copy link

Hi, @ahamad-MS Thanks for your PR. I am workflow bot for review process. Here are some small tips.

  • Please ensure to do self-check against checklists in first PR comment.
  • PR assignee is the person auto-assigned and responsible for your current PR reviewing and merging.
  • For specs comparison cross API versions, Use API Specs Comparison Report Generator
  • If there is CI failure(s), to fix CI error(s) is mandatory for PR merging; or you need to provide justification in PR comment for explanation. How to fix?

  • Any feedback about review process or workflow bot, pls contact swagger and tools team. vsswagger@microsoft.com

    @ahamad-MS
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    @lirenhe, can you please help merge this change and provide an ETA For that?

    I am not sure what is next step as I don't see any issue related to my change other than breaking change which is not sure how to resolve given this is what Swagger Correctness team asked us to do. My understanding this should be handled by reviewer to approve this change. Please let me know if I am missing something.

    @lirenhe lirenhe added the Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 label Mar 9, 2021
    @lirenhe lirenhe merged commit eb89dba into Azure:master Mar 9, 2021
    This was referenced Mar 9, 2021
    mkarmark pushed a commit to mkarmark/azure-rest-api-specs that referenced this pull request Jul 21, 2021
    * fix example
    
    * Fix multiple linter and swagger correctness/completeness issues for latest preview and stable api version
    
    * Fix format
    
    * fix examples
    
    * fix validation model errors
    
    * fix validation model errors
    
    * fix example
    
    * remove default
    
    * revert 2020-06 changes
    
    * fix eventgrid swagger file with multiple linter and correctness fixes
    
    * fix 2020-06-01 stable swagger
    
    * fix 2020-06-01 stable swagger -- part 2
    
    * fix format
    
    * fix prettier check
    
    * additional format fix
    
    * fix examples and wrong response code
    
    * fix validator
    
    * fix validator
    
    * fix remaining swagger correctness issues
    
    * fix end of file
    
    * fix lintter
    
    Co-authored-by: Ashraf Hamad <ahamad@ntdev.microsoft.com>
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    Approved-BreakingChange DO NOT USE! OBSOLETE label. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-tools/issues/6374 CI-BreakingChange-Go FixS360
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants